@article{SoliveresManningPratietal.2016, author = {Soliveres, Santiago and Manning, Peter and Prati, Daniel and Gossner, Martin M. and Alt, Fabian and Arndt, Hartmut and Baumgartner, Vanessa and Binkenstein, Julia and Birkhofer, Klaus and Blaser, Stefan and Bluethgen, Nico and Boch, Steffen and Boehm, Stefan and Boerschig, Carmen and Buscot, Francois and Diekoetter, Tim and Heinze, Johannes and Hoelzel, Norbert and Jung, Kirsten and Klaus, Valentin H. and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kleinebecker, Till and Klemmer, Sandra and Krauss, Jochen and Lange, Markus and Morris, E. Kathryn and Mueller, Joerg and Oelmann, Yvonne and Overmann, J{\"o}rg and Pasalic, Esther and Renner, Swen C. and Rillig, Matthias C. and Schaefer, H. Martin and Schloter, Michael and Schmitt, Barbara and Schoening, Ingo and Schrumpf, Marion and Sikorski, Johannes and Socher, Stephanie A. and Solly, Emily F. and Sonnemann, Ilja and Sorkau, Elisabeth and Steckel, Juliane and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Stempfhuber, Barbara and Tschapka, Marco and Tuerke, Manfred and Venter, Paul and Weiner, Christiane N. and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Werner, Michael and Westphal, Catrin and Wilcke, Wolfgang and Wolters, Volkmar and Wubet, Tesfaye and Wurst, Susanne and Fischer, Markus and Allan, Eric}, title = {Locally rare species influence grassland ecosystem multifunctionality}, series = {Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London : B, Biological sciences}, volume = {371}, journal = {Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London : B, Biological sciences}, publisher = {Royal Society}, address = {London}, issn = {0962-8436}, doi = {10.1098/rstb.2015.0269}, pages = {3175 -- 3185}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Species diversity promotes the delivery of multiple ecosystem functions (multifunctionality). However, the relative functional importance of rare and common species in driving the biodiversity multifunctionality relationship remains unknown. We studied the relationship between the diversity of rare and common species (according to their local abundances and across nine different trophic groups), and multifunctionality indices derived from 14 ecosystem functions on 150 grasslands across a land use intensity (LUI) gradient. The diversity of above- and below-ground rare species had opposite effects, with rare above-ground species being associated with high levels of multifunctionality, probably because their effects on different functions did not trade off against each other. Conversely, common species were only related to average, not high, levels of multifunctionality, and their functional effects declined with LUI. Apart from the community level effects of diversity, we found significant positive associations between the abundance of individual species and multifunctionality in 6\% of the species tested. Species specific functional effects were best predicted by their response to LUI: species that declined in abundance with land use intensification were those associated with higher levels of multifunctionality. Our results highlight the importance of rare species for ecosystem multifunctionality and help guiding future conservation priorities.}, language = {en} } @article{AllanWeisserFischeretal.2013, author = {Allan, Eric and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Fischer, Markus and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Weigelt, Alexandra and Roscher, Christiane and Baade, Jussi and Barnard, Romain L. and Bessler, Holger and Buchmann, Nina and Ebeling, Anne and Eisenhauer, Nico and Engels, Christof and Fergus, Alexander J. F. and Gleixner, Gerd and Gubsch, Marlen and Halle, Stefan and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kertscher, Ilona and Kuu, Annely and Lange, Markus and Le Roux, Xavier and Meyer, Sebastian T. and Migunova, Varvara D. and Milcu, Alexandru and Niklaus, Pascal A. and Oelmann, Yvonne and Pasalic, Esther and Petermann, Jana S. and Poly, Franck and Rottstock, Tanja and Sabais, Alexander C. W. and Scherber, Christoph and Scherer-Lorenzen, Michael and Scheu, Stefan and Steinbeiss, Sibylle and Schwichtenberg, Guido and Temperton, Vicky and Tscharntke, Teja and Voigt, Winfried and Wilcke, Wolfgang and Wirth, Christian and Schmid, Bernhard}, title = {A comparison of the strength of biodiversity effects across multiple functions}, series = {Oecologia}, volume = {173}, journal = {Oecologia}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {0029-8549}, doi = {10.1007/s00442-012-2589-0}, pages = {223 -- 237}, year = {2013}, abstract = {In order to predict which ecosystem functions are most at risk from biodiversity loss, meta-analyses have generalised results from biodiversity experiments over different sites and ecosystem types. In contrast, comparing the strength of biodiversity effects across a large number of ecosystem processes measured in a single experiment permits more direct comparisons. Here, we present an analysis of 418 separate measures of 38 ecosystem processes. Overall, 45 \% of processes were significantly affected by plant species richness, suggesting that, while diversity affects a large number of processes not all respond to biodiversity. We therefore compared the strength of plant diversity effects between different categories of ecosystem processes, grouping processes according to the year of measurement, their biogeochemical cycle, trophic level and compartment (above- or belowground) and according to whether they were measures of biodiversity or other ecosystem processes, biotic or abiotic and static or dynamic. Overall, and for several individual processes, we found that biodiversity effects became stronger over time. Measures of the carbon cycle were also affected more strongly by plant species richness than were the measures associated with the nitrogen cycle. Further, we found greater plant species richness effects on measures of biodiversity than on other processes. The differential effects of plant diversity on the various types of ecosystem processes indicate that future research and political effort should shift from a general debate about whether biodiversity loss impairs ecosystem functions to focussing on the specific functions of interest and ways to preserve them individually or in combination.}, language = {en} } @article{ManningGossnerBossdorfetal.2015, author = {Manning, Pete and Gossner, Martin M. and Bossdorf, Oliver and Allan, Eric and Zhang, Yuan-Ye and Prati, Daniel and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and Boch, Steffen and B{\"o}hm, Stefan and B{\"o}rschig, Carmen and H{\"o}lzel, Norbert and Jung, Kirsten and Klaus, Valentin H. and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kleinebecker, Till and Krauss, Jochen and Lange, Markus and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Pasalic, Esther and Socher, Stephanie A. and Tschapka, Marco and T{\"u}rke, Manfred and Weiner, Christiane and Werner, Michael and Gockel, Sonja and Hemp, Andreas and Renner, Swen C. and Wells, Konstans and Buscot, Francois and Kalko, Elisabeth K. V. and Linsenmair, Karl Eduard and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Fischer, Markus}, title = {Grassland management intensification weakens the associations among the diversities of multiple plant and animal taxa}, series = {Ecology : a publication of the Ecological Society of America}, volume = {96}, journal = {Ecology : a publication of the Ecological Society of America}, number = {6}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0012-9658}, doi = {10.1890/14-1307.1}, pages = {1492 -- 1501}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Land-use intensification is a key driver of biodiversity change. However, little is known about how it alters relationships between the diversities of different taxonomic groups, which are often correlated due to shared environmental drivers and trophic interactions. Using data from 150 grassland sites, we examined how land-use intensification (increased fertilization, higher livestock densities, and increased mowing frequency) altered correlations between the species richness of 15 plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate taxa. We found that 54\% of pairwise correlations between taxonomic groups were significant and positive among all grasslands, while only one was negative. Higher land-use intensity substantially weakened these correlations(35\% decrease in rand 43\% fewer significant pairwise correlations at high intensity), a pattern which may emerge as a result of biodiversity declines and the breakdown of specialized relationships in these conditions. Nevertheless, some groups (Coleoptera, Heteroptera, Hymenoptera and Orthoptera) were consistently correlated with multidiversity, an aggregate measure of total biodiversity comprised of the standardized diversities of multiple taxa, at both high and lowland-use intensity. The form of intensification was also important; increased fertilization and mowing frequency typically weakened plant-plant and plant-primary consumer correlations, whereas grazing intensification did not. This may reflect decreased habitat heterogeneity under mowing and fertilization and increased habitat heterogeneity under grazing. While these results urge caution in using certain taxonomic groups to monitor impacts of agricultural management on biodiversity, they also suggest that the diversities of some groups are reasonably robust indicators of total biodiversity across a range of conditions.}, language = {en} } @article{KuehneFischerJeglinskiMende2022, author = {K{\"u}hne, Katharina and Fischer, Martin H. and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A.}, title = {During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance}, series = {Scientific Reports}, volume = {12}, journal = {Scientific Reports}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2045-2322}, doi = {10.1038/s41598-022-16730-1}, pages = {1 -- 12}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Peripersonal space is the space surrounding our body, where multisensory integration of stimuli and action execution take place. The size of peripersonal space is flexible and subject to change by various personal and situational factors. The dynamic representation of our peripersonal space modulates our spatial behaviors towards other individuals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this spatial behavior was modified by two further factors: social distancing and wearing a face mask. Evidence from offline and online studies on the impact of a face mask on pro-social behavior is mixed. In an attempt to clarify the role of face masks as pro-social or anti-social signals, 235 observers participated in the present online study. They watched pictures of two models standing at three different distances from each other (50, 90 and 150 cm), who were either wearing a face mask or not and were either interacting by initiating a hand shake or just standing still. The observers' task was to classify the model by gender. Our results show that observers react fastest, and therefore show least avoidance, for the shortest distances (50 and 90 cm) but only when models wear a face mask and do not interact. Thus, our results document both pro- and anti-social consequences of face masks as a result of the complex interplay between social distancing and interactive behavior. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.}, language = {en} } @misc{FischerWinterFelisattietal.2021, author = {Fischer, Martin H. and Winter, Bodo and Felisatti, Arianna and Myachykov, Andriy and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A. and Shaki, Samuel}, title = {More Instructions Make Fewer Subtractions}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, volume = {12}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-55008}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-550086}, pages = {1 -- 3}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; {\"O}llinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that "participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load" (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and N{\´u}{\~n}ez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of "addition bias" or "subtraction neglect" to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.}, language = {en} } @article{FischerWinterFelisattietal.2021, author = {Fischer, Martin H. and Winter, Bodo and Felisatti, Arianna and Myachykov, Andriy and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A. and Shaki, Samuel}, title = {More instructions make fewer subtractions}, series = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation}, volume = {12}, journal = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne, Schweiz}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720616}, pages = {1 -- 3}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; {\"O}llinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that "participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load" (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and N{\´u}{\~n}ez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of "addition bias" or "subtraction neglect" to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.}, language = {en} }